Yes, but the victim’s family should decide the punishment

Usually the accused hasn’t admitted guilt and you could be killing an innocent person. The family should not get to choose as they are personally involved in the outcome and will want to see the accused suffer, without giving it proper thought a judge who has no emotional relation to the case should decide not the family

Well i do not agree with the death penalty as this implies the justice system is completely accurate and is due to get the right victim each time. the system often targets minorities aswell as those in the lower echelons of society , giving harder punishments for lesser crime.

Punishments should be decided by an unbiased party. 'Punishments' should be focused on rehabilitation.

The family of a victim will inevitably be over emotional and unable to make a rational decision about said punishment. Someone or someones who can be as objective, rather than subjective, as possible should be making the decisions.

Just because your family member was a victim it does not mean that you have better judgement that others. Once you decide that someone deserves to die you are a murderer.

Two wrongs don't make a right, eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, also far too big of a risk of killing an innocent person.

Death penalties are the sign of a society which has failed its citizens through inadequate policing, justice systems and sentencing. Effective justice should seek, where possible, to balance public protection against rehabilitation of offenders. Victim's families are of course impacted, however a role for them in sentencing would drastically undermine its consistency and public trust.

Death should never be a punishment, a lifetime in prison is far worse. You still lose your life you just have to watch it happen

The death penalty is a disgraceful act. Having to choose life and death puts people in a terrible position of power. What if this person is actually innocent? It would be a massive irreversible injustice.

It depends on the circumstances, accidents happen, I agree some punishments should be harsher but we are not the law we should not have a say. Being lead by emotions is dangerous.

Law is complex and punishments have real consequences on real people. They should be decided by experienced Judges.

This is completely unfair to put on the family of the victim and the decision could haunt them forever.

The victim's family will be extremely driven by emotion- if applied to a smaller crime such as theft, there is a chance that the victim and their family would choose a very extreme punishment purely because they have an attachment to the case. Impartiality is necessary in choosing an appropriate punishment.

Revenge isn't Justice. Allowing victims to determine the punishment is a terrible idea on top of the overwhelming arguments against the death penalty.

Every human has the right to life. That is a fact that cannot be compromised on. And an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

While it's understandable that some people might argue that the victim's family should have a say in the punishment, it's essential to consider the broader implications of this perspective. One of the fundamental principles of justice is the idea of impartiality and fairness. Allowing the victim's family to decide the punishment could introduce bias and emotional influence into the legal system.

Absolutely not as people can get weird with it and can really torture the person who committed the crime. Can be too hard on the family of the victim to lose someone then create a punishment

Every individual has the right to life. Those who take it away should be punished severely but not with death.

Morals don't come into it. Whilst the UK has an effective criminal justice system, it isn't perfect. We can as good as guarantee that someone innocent will be killed by the state.

We don't allow people who get robbed to go and engage in vigilante justice on the burglar because we recognise that humans can be massively vindictive people who don't act in the name of justice or fairness but in retribution and selfish, righteous anger.

This is a popular trial it would give too much place to revenge in the debate. The unfair act of giving death should not be punished by an unfair revenge

The victim's family are not an impartial party to make that decision and should also not bear the responsibility if the defendant has been falsely accused.

Arbitrary punishments decided for by individuals is no way to run a justice system. It allows for people to be punished not based on the severity of the crime but on the whim of an individual. And who in the family decides do they vote?

We need a justice system and allowing greiving members of a family to inflict pain or provide sentancing could lead to unfair sentancing without logic whilst using emotion only. People don't think clear when emotion is evolved. You need an out-sider.

The law should be impartial, including sentencing. The victim's family are the most emotionally invested and cannot be impartial. It may also be cruel to drag the victim's family through the ordeal to craft an 'ideal' sentence.

What if they are not guilty? There are too many complexities and this can encourage violence, or power trips.

no one should be killed for their actions, they should simply be punished and put away for life. they’ll suffer more in a cell for the rest of their life than dead where the pain is gone immediately

That would be revenge, not justice. The whole point of a legal system is to try to remove subjectivity.

I personally think emotive decision making cannot be the reason a punishment is given as they could be supporting a mass murderer and not know it themselves. It’s always best if the death penalty was reintroduced that they have sufficient evidence to do so. Based on events in recent times with all the technology in hand they still come to incorrect verdicts a lot or inconclusive. So a lot of work would need to be done.

There is no justification for the death penalty. Decision made by the victims family will be revenge driven rather than true justice.

Victim's family are not the judge, jury nor executioner. Victim's family does not decide the law, they must accept the ruling within the confines of our law system.

everyone deserves a fair trial. and even though legally they are guilty; in vary rare cases people have been proven innocent after being on the death penalty

because they are emotional and if they were in the other position they wouldnt want the decision to be emotional

It’s impossible to appreciate the pain the victims family must be going through but that is precisely why they shouldn’t be involved. Imagine they decide to execute someone who is later found to be innocent. Surely that would increase their pain still further.

Bias, no impartial decision making. Takes away from the integrity of courts. Individual differences for different families, who all have different opinions. Inconsistent sentencing.

Re-introducing the death penalty is a step backwards because as much as you may be hurting, it makes you just as bad as an eye for an eye makes everyone blind. Statistics show that it isn't a deterrent in other countries like the USA.

A conviction could later be proven to have been false and the wrong person has been wrongly sent to death for a crime they didn't commit. No systems are 100% flawless and the justice system is no different.

The victims family are irrelevant to legal procedure beyond the consideration of damages to be awarded in a civil circumstance.

The State should not use death as a punishment of crime. This would not reflect my position regarding the kind of society I wish to live in.

A family of the victim can make no subjective decision on a punishment, they're decision will be clouded by emotion and will not follow the rationale of our judiciary processes.

Too many people are wrongly convinced. There have been too many cases where the truth was revealed as news came to light 10 years later! You can pull them out of prison and apologise at the least, you can't bring them back to life.